AMedically speaking, Life is right. While the potential for a human being exists, the fetus is technically not yet a human being.

I took the time (in almost every post) to explain why an unborn baby is a human being since conception. If you, or anyone arguing for abortion wish to be respectful, the very least you could do is answer the question yourself.

To those that say "I don't know," it is clearly not enough to justify abortion. If you claim no knowledge on the subject, then what business have you advocating a pro-abortion position?

/edit

Quote:

Actually, a fetus does not have a gender until about 12 weeks gestation.

Its DNA is 100% complete before then, dictating what gender it is. You are simply arguing personhood from a development standpoint. But this is like saying that a 2 year old girl is less a person then a fully developed female. It is untrue.

/end of edit

Caedus_16 wrote:

Its a subject that men can disagree on but ultimately have zero right to comment on. I don't believe its right, but its a woman's choice

I get that you think its a woman's right. I have explained why it isn't. Yet you maintain that it is, without even the slightest mention of any reason I or anyone else gave to the contrary.

Quote:

Would I fight a late-term abortion? Absolutely, but early-term I wouldn't fight, I'd simply disagree with.

I have given a response to this in my last couple of posts. Please respond to my points.

Note - Sorry to get frustrated, but it seems as though most people coming in here simply wish to ignore any of the points made and end the debate immediately. If you don't wish to debate abortion, you need not come to this thread.

---

Last edited by Autobon on Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:44 pm; edited 3 times in total

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:01 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Quote:

I took the time (in almost every post) to explain why an unborn baby is a human being since conception. If you, or anyone arguing for abortion wish to be respectful, the very least you could do is answer the question yourself.

Autobon, I guarantee you, you do not know my stand on abortion because I have not publicly stated my stand on abortion here -- ever. I find it rather disrespectful that you are assuming something when what I'm doing is stating medical facts and which I very clearly state as such.

I think we've all read your reasons for your position. Others have given theirs. It isn't a discussion when it becomes a repetition of the same statements._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:15 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751

Cerrinea wrote:

Autobon, I guarantee you, you do not know my stand on abortion because I have not publicly stated my stand on abortion here -- ever.

Very well. Though it is dishonest for you to pretend as if your posts do not go after those that are pro-life, whether thats painting them as hypocrites or trying to debate their points (as in your last post). Add that in with sentiments such as how certain topics are "offensive coming from a male," and I start to have a better idea of where you stand on the issue.

So while I wont call you pro-abortion anymore, it was not disrespectful to assume as much in the first place.

Quote:

what I'm doing is stating medical facts

You took my post out of context. I know the stages of development. I was responding to someone using a fetus in his example. I did as well in direct response to him.

I also responded to your point about gender in my last post.

--

Last edited by Autobon on Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:26 pm; edited 1 time in total

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:23 pm

Message

CerrineaMaster

Joined: 09 Jun 2009Posts: 1491

Your ability to rationalize your error and place the blame on the other person amazes me. And to stoop to calling me dishonest is decidedly disrespectful, although not at all surprising._________________Roqoo Depot co-founder.

Posted: Sat Mar 03, 2012 5:31 pm

Message

Salaris VornModerator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008Posts: 2373Location: New York, USA

This is rapidly heading from a discussion on abortion to finger pointing at who has insulted who in what way. I'm going to step in at this point and suggest we all take a few days off to let our heads cool before attempting to resume the debate.

To all please recognize I am NOT saying anyone here is in the right and didn't insult others. I'm an NOT excusing, defending, or otherwise condoning the behavior of either side. Should any of you feel that you were wronged PM a Mod or Admin who you feel comfortable talking to and we'll look into your grievance and decide the appropriate course of action to take._________________

Like the word toddler or adolescent, the term fetus is simply applies to a human at a certain stage of development. However, personhood is not defined by stage of development, but by membership in the human species. It is a member of that species due to its biological characteristics, both actual and potential (Nardone).

But when does that thing growing inside a woman become a member of personhood? You feel it's at the moment of conception, and I don't. But terms like foetus are used to differentiate between different stages in development.

Quote:

At the moment of conception, a baby has 100% of its DNA (human DNA), completely unique to that of its mother (or anyone for that matter). From this moment on there is no line that you can draw that pinpoints when baby goes from not human, to human. It is the only logical starting point of personhood.

All cells in the body contain the entire DNA sequence of the person.

Quote:

I believe many that are pro-abortion realize this, whether or not they want to admit it. And so they take a term, fetus, simply used to describe a stage in development, and now use it with a subhuman connotation.

Semantics however, only affect perceptions, they do not change reality! If we say the fetus is not part of the human species, then we must say it is a part of some other species. This cannot be done.

That's not how biology works. To say it's part of another species is factually incorrect.

Quote:

What line would you draw? Why "the first two weeks?" Is it a baby after a few weeks... and a day? What scientific data or logic do you use to come to that specific date? What makes a human a human if not its biological characteristics, its DNA?

I'd said 12 to 24 weeks, actually. This is at the point where a phoetus gains a brain, and takes its first heartbeats. At this point it is considered alive, by law, and thus illegal to abort. This is determined by scientific data gained by scientists who specifically researched the development stages of a baby in the womb. But I don't think a human can simply be called a human just from its DNA. That's a bit like saying 'this book is a novel, a story, because it contains words.' I believe humans are made human by being more than the sum of their parts. By thoughts, not genetic code - which, again, all cells contain.

Quote:

If you don't think it is murder, then do not use words like "synonym" or even sentences where you use the word murder and abortion interchangeably. I can only go on what I read from your posts.

But you asked. I do not shy away from these things, even though I disagree with it.

Quote:

Autobon wrote:

Autobon - give me a situation where having killed 50 million babies improved society in some measurable way.

Life Is The Path wrote:

Life is the Path - Give me a situation where having killed 50 million babies didn't improve it.

Quote:

Sure I know of many, but let me give you one. Social Security. I am not going to get into the in-depth workings of the system, but the simple idea is that it requires new people paying in to the system to support those living off the system. But having eliminated 50 million people, there will soon be too many people living off the system because there are not enough new people paying into the system. Thus, you have a collapse.

NOTE: I do not mind answering the same questions I pose to others. I however do not appreciate it being repeated back to me without you first having answered it yourself.

Didn't you say that's 50 million people over a period of 50 years? That's hardly such a big number, such a big dip, once you remember that. But I did give you an answer. I said it was unknowable, and thus unanswerable.

Quote:

Third party in the fact that the baby its own unique person. It has its own DNA, its own gender, etc.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the egg gets its gender in approximately 12 weeks. And, like I said, I think it's nothing more than a bundle of cells until a certain period.

EDIT:

Quote:

@Life: Can we just call "agreeing to disagree" by that now? "Pulling a Caedus" has a nice ring to it, and its kind of a positive statement.

Sure . I thought it sounded cool. I'm glad you like it!

EDIT: Eep. I'm so sorry, everyone. I hadn't read the last post, here, before answering. I'll shut up now and leave. Sorry._________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 11:12 am

Message

Mara Jade SkywalkerAdministrator

Joined: 15 Feb 2008Posts: 6359Location: Beyond Shadows

@Life: While I agree with Autobon's point of view (in that I cannot support abortion at any stage), you have every right to debate with him. You've kept your cool in every post and have never been ugly or rude. No worries about coming back with a defense. Again, I do agree with Autobon, but I'm interested in reading everyone's opinions, especially when presented with civility. _________________"It's not about the legacy you leave, it's about the life you live." ~Mara Jade Skywalker

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 12:30 pm

Message

AutobonMaster

Joined: 17 Apr 2008Posts: 751

Life Is The Path wrote:

Autobon wrote:

At the moment of conception, a baby has 100% of its DNA (human DNA), completely unique to that of its mother (or anyone for that matter). From this moment on there is no line that you can draw that pinpoints when baby goes from not human, to human. It is the only logical starting point of personhood.

All cells in the body contain the entire DNA sequence of the person.

Yes, they pretty much all do. My argument however, was that DNA is the only way to logically draw a line as to whether something is human or not. Once we have established that the baby is human, then we must give it the same human rights endowed to others. Arguing personhood from a basis of development is illogical and impossible. You have demonstrated this when you mentioned "12 to 24 weeks." You clearly have a problem with drawing a line since there is no logical point at which to do so, therefore you give a very broad gap in weeks, as if saying "that should hopefully cover my margin of error."

But when dealing with a human life, this highly fickle boundary simply will not do. If you are not 100% sure as to whether or not you will terminate a life, you need always err on the side of caution. This concept applies to every activity we humans engage in.

Life Is The Path wrote:

Autobon wrote:

Semantics however, only affect perceptions, they do not change reality! If we say the fetus is not part of the human species, then we must say it is a part of some other species. This cannot be done.

That's not how biology works. To say it's part of another species is factually incorrect.

Yes, that is my point. The unborn, at all stages of development are human beings, in both actual and potential sense. Any attempts to make them out to be "just a clump of cells" is to simply dehumanize.

Life Is The Path wrote:

Autobon wrote:

What line would you draw? Why "the first two weeks?" Is it a baby after a few weeks... and a day? What scientific data or logic do you use to come to that specific date? What makes a human a human if not its biological characteristics, its DNA?

This is at the point where a phoetus gains a brain, and takes its first heartbeats. I believe humans are made human by being more than the sum of their parts. By thoughts, not genetic code

If we were to truly define personhood by thoughts, heartbeats, and such, we would get into some very ridiculous complications. There are countless situations in which a vital body part my stop functioning for a period of time. Do the humans in such dilemmas cease to be persons for that amount of time? Why do we try to revive those in cardiac arrest? If we define life by a heartbeat, then clearly they do not possess human rights any longer. Their heart stopped working.

And thoughts? What about when your sleeping. You are not a rational and thinking being during deep sleep. Are you less human when sleeping? And what about babies that are born, or those that are mentally handicap? Are they less human because their thoughts might not make it to the same level of logic as yours?

Clearly we cannot define human rights by our thoughts, or what parts of our body work or do not work. It is a fickle line to draw. DNA and its designating of you as human is the only stable definition we can use for personhood.

Quote:

But I don't think a human can simply be called a human just from its DNA. That's a bit like saying 'this book is a novel, a story, because it contains words.'

This anology is incorrect. DNA is not random words written in a book, it is a novel of the most unimaginable logic. If it were an unintelligible sequence, you would not form as a human being!

Quote:

Didn't you say that's 50 million people over a period of 50 years? That's hardly such a big number

The number I gave was 50 million over a period of about 40 years. Let me give you a comparison though. About 2.5 million people die in America every year. About 1.3 million babies are aborted every year. That is a ridiculously large number and in every way a big deal.

Quote:

Actually, I'm pretty sure the egg gets its gender in approximately 12 weeks..

Its DNA is 100% complete before then, dictating what gender it is. You are simply arguing personhood from a development standpoint. But this is like saying that a 2 year old girl is less a person then a fully developed female. It is untrue.

Quote:

I'm so sorry, everyone. I hadn't read the last post, here, before answering. I'll shut up now and leave. Sorry.

No! Come back!

Mara Jade Skywalker wrote:

Again, I do agree with Autobon, but I'm interested in reading everyone's opinions, especially when presented with civility

Glad to find some fellow pro-lifers

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 1:34 pm

Message

Salaris VornModerator

Joined: 02 Feb 2008Posts: 2373Location: New York, USA

Ok I'll say debate can reopen as it seems that both sides wish to carry on a civilized debate. Let me emphasize that there must be an understanding that the debate must focus on the merits of individuals points. If it gets personal again with questions of an individual's integrity or any similar behavior discussion will be halted again.

I don't expect people to agree with the opposition but the discussion must remain civilized. (Lightsabers are OK, blasters not so much)._________________

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:26 pm

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 2062Location: Ontario, Canada

Before I get into my position in the debate, as a biologist, I want to clarify something:

DNA does not decide gender. The expression of DNA decides gender. People with Y-chromosomes can be born as anatomical females. One specific gene, called SRY, on the Y-chromosome, must be activated in order for an embryo to anatomically become male. If it is in some way suppressed (either naturally through a genetic quirk or artificially through science), then the embryo will remain female. The anatomical structures that the genderless embryo develops can become sex organs of either sex. The male organ (EDIT: its name is censored, apparently) and clitoris both start from the same structure, as do testes and ovaries (fun fact: one of the reasons that it hurts so much to be kicked in the nads is because your body still thinks the testes are inside, and thus the pain reaction propagates through your abdomen too).

And none of this takes into account people who are genetically and/or anatomically of one gender, but psychologically of the other (I believe the appropriate term is Transgendered, though I admit to not knowing much about the phenomenon, beyond it being a real thing).

Now, on to the topic at hand:

I am pro-choice. A woman should have every right to end a pregnancy if she feels it is the right choice. She should never be forced to have one or to not have one. Choice is key.

Ergo, as a man, I almost feel that being anything other than Pro-Choice is wrong. It is not my place to decide what a woman should do with her body.

The various arguments for and against abortion itself are all fair, I feel (rape, economics, maternal health, infant health, religion, politics, etc.) But they all come down to one thing: if the woman feels that abortion is the best possible option, she should have the right to do so.

The fact that she has that right does not in any way impede any other mother, faced with the exact same situation, to make the decision to keep the baby instead. That's the beauty of Choice.

I am married, and my wife and I would like to start having children in the next couple of years. Indeed, we're in the "not trying, but would be happy if it happened accidentally" stage. But if she got pregnant years ago, while we were still dating, and neither of us could support a child, I would not have begrudged her the choice. She could choose to keep it, and I'd be there. She could choose to abort, and I'd be there. Granted, we would have had support from my family and hers, but there are many who do not, and for whom the unplanned birth of a baby might ruin multiple lives (the baby's included).

Admittedly, there is adoption, and in theory, giving up a newborn to adoption might be a best-of-all-worlds scenario (not needing to support the child, the child gets a loving home, the adoptive parents get kids of their own, etc.) But that's all in theory. In practise the adoption programs in Canada and the US are jokes. There are far too many kids in the system, I understand that there are abuses within the fostering system, etc. Couple that with the unique situation in the US where, in many states, gay couples are not allowed to adopt, due to some backwards fear (I am offended by this; any couple who proves they can support a child should be allowed to adopt, regardless of orientation; for further info, read "The Kid" and "The Committment" by Dan Savage). So putting a baby up adoption is not necessarily a reasonable alternative, if there is a chance that they could be stuck in an uncaring "system" for 18 years.

Frankly, the legal discussions on abortion in US law is getting to be a joke. There's that one state that wants to insist that pregnant women wanting an abortion also get a transvaginal ultrasound, insisting that "consent to penetrate is irrelevant, since they already consented to being penetrated when they got pregnant in the first place." I almost threw up when I read that. And then there's Rick Santorum, who thinks that a rape baby is a gift from God. Then there's another state (sorry, I don't remember which) whose anti-abortion laws would also cover spontaneous miscarriage.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the abortion issue is not about murder, or the life of an unborn baby, but an issue about women's health. Women should be able to make the choice for themselves, in a legal and safe way, to control when and how they give birth.

I would add real quick one important point: outlawing abortion will not eliminate abortion. All it will do is drive it underground (not unlike alcohol prohibition in the 1920s). Women will still get abortions, but it will be unregulated and dangerous. The number of women who get sick or die from having abortions in unlicensd, unregulated, unmaintained facilities will skyrocket.

I'd like to end my post with one quick apology. I forget that we are all united on this board out of only one thing: our love for Star Wars. We all come from different economic, political, religious, etc. backgrounds. I had to remember that when reading the last few pages of posts, because extreme pro-life/no-abortions-for-anyone talk can make me uncomfortable or even a bit offended, just as I'm sure my pro-choice talk may offend some as well. It is not my intention to offend, just as I'm sure it was not anyone else's intention to offend._________________http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 2:30 pm

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 2062Location: Ontario, Canada

Some of my above post might be a tad uncivilized. I'm sorry. I get passionate when I talk politics, especially when I talk gender and sexual rights._________________http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:30 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7925Location: Sailing into the unknown

I think the question of whether a foetus is human or not is void. A foetus will become, unless tampered with, a human being. I think, therefore, a foetus should have full protection of the law.

Once that has been established the taking of a foetus's life becomes a bigger issue than violating a woman's rights. This view is going to be unpopular, but I have to speak my mind. Would it make the pill easier to swallow if I said that neither action (violating a woman's rights or taking a life) are at all desirable, but that violating a woman's rights is the lesser of two evils? In the end it's more a violation of the baby's rights than the mother's._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:39 pm

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 2062Location: Ontario, Canada

Reepicheep wrote:

I think the question of whether a foetus is human or not is void. A foetus will become, unless tampered with, a human being. I think, therefore, a foetus should have full protection of the law.

I disagree. Fetuses can, and do occasionally, spontaneously abort. Some are stillborn. It cannot be said with certainty that all fetuses will become people, barring being "tampered with."

Even if I did agree, there's another point: where does one draw the line on what is a "fetus"? There are generally agreed definitions on terms like fetus, zygote, embryo, morula, etc. etc. But there is no defining line. There is no point in development where at 11:59:59 it's a zygote and at 12:00:00 it's a fetus. And using gestation period is useless, since one never knows exactly when conception took place (even if you have sex one time in your entire life and get pregnant, the act of fertilization could be anywhere within a fairly wide range). Factor in the fact that development rate is not 100% constant.

So it becomes impossible to say "it should be illegal to abort an unborn child as of Month 3." Because people like me would say "Why month 3? What's different between month 3 and month-3-less-one-second?" Because that is how the law works; in that hypothetical, an abortion taking place exactly one second before the law enters force is fully legal.

If we decide that abortion becomes illegal as of fertilization, then that also means numerous forms of legitimate birth control, like Plan B, are made illegal too. Where does it stop?_________________http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 3:55 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7925Location: Sailing into the unknown

I think the state of development is irrelevant. I was just using foetus to mean 'unborn baby'. Kill as many sperm and egg cells as you want, but once they join, hands off. In other words, if an unborn baby is able to be aborted, it shouldn't be.

I didn't know foetus's could spontaneously abort. What are the chances of this? I'm guessing it's fairly slim.

Point taken, a foetus will almost always become a human being. I don't see this as changing anything however. As a healthy 18 year-old, there's a very slim chance I won't wake up tomorrow, but that very slim chance isn't an excuse for shooting me in the mean time.

Obviously this isn't a perfect example because a foetus isn't 'alive' the same way I'm alive so we'll say I was in suspended animation for a day._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Mon Mar 05, 2012 4:07 pm

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 2062Location: Ontario, Canada

"Spontaneous abortion" is just a miscarriage. Any pregnant woman might suddenly miscarry. My mother lost a pregnancy before I was born. I'm told my mother-in-law lost at least one as well. My wife's grandmother lost quite a few, to the point where she refused to get in a car during her last pregnancy, out of fear that the vibrations might make her lose another.

I don't think Plan B should be considered abortion, but by your definition it is. Plan B is the Morning-After Pill. You had sex, you used protection, but found out after the fact that it didn't work (condom broke, forgot birth control pill, etc.), so you take Plan B. I'm not sure if it kills the ovum/zygote or if it prevents it from binding to the uterine wall, but in the end, the goal is to prevent pregnancy. In theory, it's no different from pre-sex birth control, but it has the impact of possibly killing a several-hour-old living embryo. But it isn't abortion, it's what responsible people do NOW to prevent the need for an abortion LATER._________________http://taralbooks.blogspot.ca